I haven't been here for several days, so apologies if similar comments have been posted regarding Messrs Spinks' & O'Brien's "spiritual & scriptural" replies to the Australian Royal Commission last week.
Perhaps this line of questioning by Mr. Stewart could have helped exposed the org's corruption of the "two witness" rule:
Mr Stewart: Mr. Spinks, does the Jehovah's Witnesses' leadership base their "two witness" rule solely on the Bible?
Mr. Spinks: Yes.
Mr. Stewart: Child abuse is at issue here, but can this Bible "rule" be adjusted or changed for different serious sins?
Mr. Spinks: No it cannot, it applies to all serious sins.
Mr. Stewart: Let me reword my question; in order for elders to proceed with disciplinary action against a member of the congregation, are two witnesses of the person's sin always required?
Mr. Spinks: Yes.
Mr. Stewart: Mr. Spinks, in view of your answers, as a senior member of the Australian Branch of Jehovah's Witnesses, are you unaware of your organization's "rules" that if two people see a member of the opposite sex entering another person's home and then leaving the following morning, an assumption that sexual intercourse has taken place will be made, and both parties will be subjected to disciplinary action based upon that assumption - not upon eyewitness testimony? Also, that Jehovah's Witness elders can accept the testimony of one witness to a serious sin, if another witness can be found to a similar but separate sin by the same accused person? You stated earlier that the "two witness" rule - as J.W.'s apply it - is based on the Bible. Would you reveal to everyone here, exactly where in the Bible the two variations I've just cited, appear?